US moves Marines in position to support Tripoli embassy

posted at 9:21 am on October 8, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The government in Libya has called the US ambassador on the carpet over the seizure of Abu Anas al-Libi, the suspected mastermind behind the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, but the Libyan government is hardly our biggest worry. Early this morning, the US repositioned an emergency task force of 200 Marines to our naval base in Italy, on alert in case the embassy in Tripoli comes under attack from some of al-Libi’s allies:

Two hundred heavily armed Marines have been moved to the U.S. naval base at Sigonella, Italy, from their base in Spain to respond to any potential security crisis for the U.S. Embassy diplomatic mission in Libya, a U.S. military official told CNN. The move happened on Monday the official said. The move, made in coordination with the State Department, was made “as a prudent measure” in the wake of the US military raid to capture Abu Anas al Libi, the 49-year-old alleged al Qaeda operative.

Looks like the White House has learned from experience. Not to put too fine a point on this, but it’s the kind of move that should have been made to protect our consulate and other assets in Benghazi on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, especially given the environment in eastern Libya.

Meanwhile, what about al-Libi? As noted yesterday, the US is wisely treating him as a captured intelligence asset rather than a suspect in a crime, at least until they can extract all of the information they can from him. Normally this kind of work would be done at a “black site” abroad or at Guantanamo Bay, but Barack Obama refuses to use either one. Instead, the Associated Press reports, he’s decided to have the Navy provide floating Gitmos:

Instead of sending suspected terrorists to Guantanamo Bay or secret CIA “black” sites for interrogation, the Obama administration is questioning terrorists for as long as it takes aboard U.S. naval vessels.

And it’s doing it in a way that preserves the government’s ability to ultimately prosecute the suspects in civilian courts. …

Questioning suspected terrorists aboard U.S. warships in international waters is President Barack Obama’s answer to the Bush administration detention policies that candidate Obama promised to end. The strategy also makes good on Obama’s pledge to prosecute terrorists in U.S. civilian courts, which many Republicans have argued against. But it also raises questions about using “law of war” powers to circumvent the safeguards of the U.S. criminal justice system.

By holding people in secret prisons, known as black sites, the CIA was able to question them over long periods, using the harshest interrogation tactics, without giving them access to lawyers. Obama came to office without a ready replacement for those secret prisons. The concern was that if a terrorist was sent directly to court, the government might never know what intelligence he had. With the black sites closed and Obama refusing to send more people to the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it wasn’t obvious where the U.S. would hold people for interrogation.

And that’s where the warships came in.

Does that really preserve the government’s ability to try al-Libi in federal court? The Obama administration succeeded in 2011 using this model, but Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame made it easier by pleading guilty. Allahpundit wrote about the murky issues left by Warsame’s surprising plea in 2011, but I’ll just add that the obstacles of detention and intelligence extraction to a civilian court proceeding remain whether Gitmo floats or not. The only saving grace here is that we’ve had a case on al-Libi for more than a decade, and his interrogation is likely to focus entirely on existing threats rather than his 1998 crimes. This model may have the same problems as the Gitmo/black site models if a defendant is sophisticated enough to do a Google search or hire a better lawyer than Warsame’s.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

… it’s the kind of move that should have been made to protect our consulate and other assets in Benghazi on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 …

True, but, Ambassador Stevens was a “loose end” who knew too much – which is why Hillary left the Benghazi embassy unsecured, and why obama gave the “STAND DOWN” order and allowed the embassy to be overrun and Stevens to be slaughtered – Smith, Doherty and Woods were collateral damage that obama and Hillary did not expect.

but it’s the kind of move that should have been made to protect our consulate and other assets in Benghazi on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11,

That’s the first thing I thought when I read that headline. “Heavily armed” never even occurred to the former SOS, or if it did it was after the fact. She’s still not been held accountable for her incompetence. The second thing I thought was ya know, Kerry has outshined her on multiple levels in a very short time. He’s run circles around her. Maybe HE’s planning a run in 2016.

Normally this kind of work would be done at a “black site” abroad or at Guantanamo Bay, but Barack Obama refuses to use either one. Instead, the Associated Press reports, he’s decided to have the Navy provide floating Gitmos:

Do I have to state the obvious? This also makes all Navy warships into targets in a way they were not targets before. Especially when the reports include the fact that Abu Anas al-Libi is being interrogated on the USS San Antonio. Seems like the lazy stupid coward wants another USS Cole incident to round out the many ways he has managed to kill members of the military through his gross incompetence and reckless disregard of military members lives in the wake of a partisan political agenda. The vast majority of casualties in Afghanistan have occured since January 2009, looks like the Obama wants to kill off more sailors now.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but it’s the kind of move that should have been made to protect our consulate and other assets in Benghazi on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, especially given the environment in eastern Libya.

And a very obvious move. So obvious, in fact, that the failure to do it in Benghazi raises all kinds of questions, and is some of the best evidence that there was something highly suspect going on in Benghazi.

Questioning suspected terrorists aboard U.S. warships in international waters is President Barack Obama’s answer to the Bush administration detention policies that candidate Obama promised to end. The strategy also makes good on Obama’s pledge to prosecute terrorists in U.S. civilian courts, which many Republicans have argued against. But it also raises questions about using “law of war” powers to circumvent the safeguards of the U.S. criminal justice system.

By holding people in secret prisons, known as black sites, the CIA was able to question them over long periods, using the harshest interrogation tactics, without giving them access to lawyers. Obama came to office without a ready replacement for those secret prisons. The concern was that if a terrorist was sent directly to court, the government might never know what intelligence he had. With the black sites closed and Obama refusing to send more people to the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it wasn’t obvious where the U.S. would hold people for interrogation.

And that’s where the warships came in.

This makes no sense. The reason for black sites in foreign lands was to avoid the issue of US control and laws. Replacing them with interrogation on US Navy ships is hardly an improvement.

It seems the main purpose of using US Navy ships is to claim that you don’t send these terrorists to Guantanamo. No, that would be inhumane. Instead, you interrogate them on the functional equivalent of Gitmo on US Navy ships.

So this practice can’t replace “black sites,” and offers absolutely no advantage over Gitmo. I guess the whole point is to pretend you’re doing something different.